Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Starchild skull "not entirely human" ?

81 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

One or Alister Wayman etc.

This proof makes me like lil' jon "YEAYUH!!" XD Take THAT 'immovably' stubborn indenials! Every time you say 'NAW' the scientist will keep retesting and retesting and retesting and be right again and again and again and get even MORE proof! This DESERVED a run-on sentence. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davedini

Seems interesting will be nice to see what the end results are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1963

I would suspect that he feels quite superior to other humans. This doesn't mean that his opinion is any more correct than those who would claim alien/human cross-breeding without strong evidence.

"AGREED!" :hmm: 'UNLESS,Of course!',....You did breed!!!!? :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

To be perfectly fair, so far there has not been anything educational or factual to discuss.

We'll see what happens when the details of the findings are released.

Agreed. At this point in time, all we have is Pye's "Trust Me!" and "I got a reeeeally good guy working on it!", as well as a couple of scientifically questionable comments that immediately raise eyebrows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Qoais

Why would only one type of DNA deteriorate and not the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide

Agreed. At this point in time, all we have is Pye's "Trust Me!" and "I got a reeeeally good guy working on it!", as well as a couple of scientifically questionable comments that immediately raise eyebrows.

I was pointing out all Matt was doing was taking time to bash someone he did not care for rather than add something to a conversation. It's always easy to bash something. I was looking for substance from Matt to prove why this time on how Lloyd was not being honest or just using general terms to get press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stygean Hugh

I have to say, that was pretty cute. I asked you guys because I hate digging through the "find STARCHILD Merchandise on EBAY" ads. And since I don't know what the hell I'm looking for, can some one give me a legitimate link please! Thanks. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide

I have to say, that was pretty cute. I asked you guys because I hate digging through the "find STARCHILD Merchandise on EBAY" ads. And since I don't know what the hell I'm looking for, can some one give me a legitimate link please! Thanks. :tu:

I did give you a link...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
J Gab

I will agree with the sentiment that we need the actual scientists to come out, publish their claims, and see what the science community says. See if it can be disproved.

I also must agree with justcauseinaz. Just because we don't like someone, doesn't mean that someone can't be right. And if we want to make a claim- we need logical conclusions, not biased opinions.

Because when you think of all the people in history who made claims people thought were crazy and wound up right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

I was pointing out all Matt was doing was taking time to bash someone he did not care for rather than add something to a conversation. It's always easy to bash something. I was looking for substance from Matt to prove why this time on how Lloyd was not being honest or just using general terms to get press.

And I gave an answer, from what he said in the interview in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AzTide

And I gave an answer, from what he said in the interview in the OP.

What is OP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

What is OP?

Original Post(er).

Edited by Lilly
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

They know that the child was a male, since they're found both X and Y chromosomes. They also know from the mitochondrial DNA that the mother was Native American of haplogroup C. So... where did that male human Y chromosome come from. Could the aliens have a 100% normal Y chromosome mixed in with whatever evolved in their galaxy? This doesn't make sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oen Anderson

All that alien really means is that it is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abramelin

DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, "conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes". Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which unlike BOLD specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA from both skulls. The child belongs to haplogroup C, while the adult female belongs to haplogroup A. Both haplotypes are characteristic Native American haplogroups, but the different haplogroup for each skull indicates that the adult female was not the child's mother. Trace Genetics was not able to recover useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starchild_skull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SAmbag

They know that the child was a male, since they're found both X and Y chromosomes. They also know from the mitochondrial DNA that the mother was Native American of haplogroup C. So... where did that male human Y chromosome come from. Could the aliens have a 100% normal Y chromosome mixed in with whatever evolved in their galaxy? This doesn't make sense to me.

ALIEN HUMAN HYBRID.

boom. mind blown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stranger14

Could the aliens have a 100% normal Y chromosome mixed in with whatever evolved in their galaxy? This doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, this is tough to understand how one could be testing for non-human DNA in the nuclear DNA, when previously, a gel sheet alerted slightly on primers for the human male chromosome. While not surpassing the threshold for court evidence, the PCR reactions were slight and hinted at some human male nuclear DNA. While at the same time, recovery of the Mitochondrial DNA was fairly straightforward. Possibly the difficulty lay in that using the human primers was problematic such that they could access the mDNA but not get access to the nDNA.

It would violate Ockham's Razor to assume that the nDNA did not react to human primers - BECAUSE it was not human in the first place....while the mDNA (mother's) was all human, and DID PCR replicate with the human primers. That would be a non- scientific proposition, until such time science would be forced to this avenue by elimination of alternatives. So, the best course was to NOT further test at all since it could only serve to introduce pluralities. And we all thought that would end things there.

But no, the psuedo-science continues. The amateurs extracted the nuclear DNA, against our wishes.

So this latest release claimed that, in this March 2010 nuclear DNA extraction, there was a 256 contiguous nuclear DNA base pair set which showed 100% human which was recovered. OK the Starchild is Human then. Then there was a 342 contiguous base pair set which did not match any known human sequence. This 342 base pair set is a rather large mutation, given that - per 500 base pairs - the mutation count in humans is on the order of 2 to 4 base pairs, on average (Skyes, Cambridge 2002). And either you get DNA or you do not get DNA.

So contamination would be the first place to look, since the test did indeed retrieve DNA. That is the first stop on the ethical track. The 342 base pairs were from a foreign source which got into the lab. It is not our job to know HOW, just to contend that it did.

Now, on the non-ethical track - a skeptic not even need look for contamination because attacking the veracity of a test even occurring, then the geneticist, the lab, Lloyd Pye, any media which publishes these subjects, etc...is much more fun, ego stroking and involves much less demanding intellectual rigor.

Edited by Stranger14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stygean Hugh

Why would only one type of DNA deteriorate and not the other?

This is a great question and yet no one has bothered to address it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

When it comes to explaining DNA testing this tutorial is one of the best I've found. However, it is a bit long as the subject matter is complex. Suffice to say that partial DNA profiles are actually quite common.

Partial Profiles

Use of "partial profiles" is a newly emerging and fairly disturbing trend. A partial profile is one in which not all of the loci targeted show up in the sample. For example, if 13 loci were targeted, and only 9 could be reported, that would be termed, a partial profile. Failure of all targeted loci to show up demonstrates a serious deficiency in the sample. Normally, all human cells (except red blood cells and cells called "platelets") have all 13 loci. Therefore, a partial profile represents the equivalent of less than a single human cell. This presents some important problems:

1. A partial profile essentially proves that one is operating outside of well-characterized and recommended limits.

2. Contaminating DNA usually presents as a partial profile, although not always. For this reason, the risk that the result is a contaminant is greater than for samples that present as full profiles.

3. A partial profile is at risk of being incomplete and misleading. The partial nature of it proves that DNA molecules have been missed. There is no way of firmly determining what the complete profile would have been, except by seeking other samples that may present a full profile.

Most forensic laboratories will try to obtain full profiles. Unfortunately, in an important case, it may be tempting to use a partial profile, especially if that is all that one has. However, such profiles should be viewed skeptically. Over-interpretation of partial profiles can probably lead to serious mistakes. Such mistakes could include false inclusions and false exclusions, alike. It could be said that, compared to the first PCR-based tests introduced into the courts, use of partial profiles represents a decline in standards. This is because those earlier tests, while less discriminating, had controls (known as "control dots") that helped prevent the use of partial profiles. The earlier tests will be discussed below, primarily for historic reasons, but also because they do still appear on occasion.

So, the skull doesn't become de facto 'alien' just because a complete DNA profile couldn't be obtained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coffey

How much I would love this to be a human/alien hybrid that proves there is ET life and that they have visited us. I know damn fine this will be swept under the rug for a long time then brought up again by someone wanting their 5 minutes of fame. If this isn't true then why do they bother? It annoys the hell out of me. Not as much as the government would annoy me if they knew stuff though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattshark

You may be and probably are correct about Lloyd. But why don't you try attempting to use real facts to disprove him instead of showing us your distain for him. Anyone can pop off like you have been. But you have yet to educate or add anything of fact to the discussion.

There is nothing to disprove. There is merely an unevidenced claim by a untrustworthy source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1

This is a great question and yet no one has bothered to address it.

Well, it isn't really all that great a question.

After all, one of the two was going to deteriorate first.

If it had been the female DNA, rest assured, we would be hearing claims of how the first female alien was seduced by our ancestors.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

ALIEN HUMAN HYBRID.

boom. mind blown.

Boom. mind blown. The mother was human. Therefore, the father was not human, right? The child has a human Y chromosome. The child did not get this from it's mother because [**** here comes the mindblow****] women don't carry Y chromosomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elevate Free

Wow, *SHOCKER ALERT* nDNA evidence not believed by skeptics! I can’t wait for this to come out officially. Skeptics we’ll make you eat your words; just wait because we are a hair away from undeniable scientific evidence.

It would violate Ockham's Razor to assume that the nDNA did not react to human primers - BECAUSE it was not human in the first place....while the mDNA (mother's) was all human, and DID PCR replicate with the human primers. That would be a non- scientific proposition, until such time science would be forced to this avenue by elimination of alternatives. So, the best course was to NOT further test at all since it could only serve to introduce pluralities. And we all thought that would end things there.

So we’re being logical now are we? Of course the logical skeptical move, when there is a hotly disputed topic that threatens to blow everything we know about aliens and space, is to, “NOT further test at all since it could only serve to introduce pluralities”. When they thought the world was flat, testing theories about the world being round was stupid because it only served to introduce pluralities right? Interestingly enough, if the situation was reversed and the first test showed non-human origins of the SC skull you would be demanding further testing. But hey forgive me for going against the supposition that complex events will not unfold if there is a simpler explanation, as skeptics seem to believe.

I guess there is nothing I can say to convince anyone until the nDNA evidence is released publically for all to see. So I will wait patiently for that day, and it's coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HerNibs

Wow, *SHOCKER ALERT* nDNA evidence not believed by skeptics! I can’t wait for this to come out officially. Skeptics we’ll make you eat your words; just wait because we are a hair away from undeniable scientific evidence.

So we’re being logical now are we? Of course the logical skeptical move, when there is a hotly disputed topic that threatens to blow everything we know about aliens and space, is to, “NOT further test at all since it could only serve to introduce pluralities”. When they thought the world was flat, testing theories about the world being round was stupid because it only served to introduce pluralities right? Interestingly enough, if the situation was reversed and the first test showed non-human origins of the SC skull you would be demanding further testing. But hey forgive me for going against the supposition that complex events will not unfold if there is a simpler explanation, as skeptics seem to believe.

I guess there is nothing I can say to convince anyone until the nDNA evidence is released publically for all to see. So I will wait patiently for that day, and it's coming.

As of right now there is no DNA evidence. Nothing.

We all wait for the evidence.

Even the information in the article doesn't provided any information.

Lack of something isn't evidence. So far all anyone has said is that there is a PROBLEM with the DNA.

Evidence, that is all us evil skeptics want, evidence.

Skeptics will remain skeptics until there is verifiable evidence. Not "maybe", "could be", "might indicate", etc.

So bashing skeptics may want to be put on hold until you have something to bash them with.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.